Talk:Level-5 Comcept

Missing games?

The first game that Inafune announced after forming Comcept was Kaio: King of Pirates. Granted, we've not gotten much information on that recently, but its announcement predates that of Soul Sacrifice. Furthermore, while developed by Idea Factory, Sweet Fuse: At Your Side lists Comcept in its copyright information (see screenshots), and Keiji Inafune himself is a character in the game, so it appears they had something to do with that as well. Thoughts? The Mach Turtle (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Games

Comcept has developed various mobile games that are missing from this list, including Balloon Hero and some games in the "OSSAN!" series. --198.72.11.1 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Level 5 Comcept

It sounds like they're making one new company called "Level 5 Comcept", instead of having Level 5 and "Level 5 Comcept" as a subsidiary. The new kickstarter update says:

3. The “New Company” This is probably the biggest piece of news. As many of you may have heard, Akihiro Hino (LEVEL-5 CEO), and Keiji Inafune (comcept CEO) will be co-founding a new company “LEVEL5 comcept”.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Keiji Inafune 2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Per WP:CRYSTAL, I believe the Red Ash page was made too quickly. The Kickstarter campaign was announced, but it failed and the game never went anywhere. It appears like the game never entered into production. Keiji Inafune has given interviews after he joined Level 5, and he's never mentioned starting up the Red Ash project. There's zero evidence that the game will ever come out, as there's been no news since the campaign failed, no confirmation it's being worked on, and no release date. As such, I feel the game would be better off as a sub-heading in the L5 Comcept page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I feel that this article is sufficient enough to be standalone from the Level-5 Comcept page. Granted, there's not much else to say about this article, but I do not believe that merging it with a corporation article is beneficial at all. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Red Ash page is not a page on an actual game, rather a failed kickstarter campaign. There's no room for improvement or expansion, since the game never entered production. What you saw in the kickstarter campaign and demo is literally all the work that's ever been done on Red Ash. If someone decides to pick up production and actually release it, a page would make sense. Right now, the Red Ash page is pretty small relatively, and it'll never expand and would fit nicely as a paragraph or two in the Level 5 comcept page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support The Red Ash article fails WP:SUSTAINED - after the Kickstarter failed, coverage mostly went dark and the game died with a whimper. It hardly ever got past the drawing board and was pretty much always just a deluded pipe dream of a game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Concur @Zxcvbnm: I should have done Kaio: King of Pirates at the same time since it's basically the same situation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion: Kaio: King of Pirates

Same reasons as with Red Ash, both are cancelled Comcept Games that never got off the ground. For Kaio all we have is the announcement stories, then a few stories of the cancellation. We know nothing about the development, and as it never came out there will never be new stories about it. It's a pretty short article and should be merged into here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: Support Per nom. Wow, Inafune really cranks out those hits, huh. Joking aside, it seems like it will be a permastub if not merged. As far as cancelled games go, it does not appear particularly notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm:Yes, it's even less notable than Red Ash was. We only had the announcement and cancellation for Kaio. And in fact it's next to impossible to get a merger dsicussion going for the game since so few people care about it. 15:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Just go ahead. No one's going to talk about it at this point anyway.2606:6000:60CC:C900:EDE1:B883:59CD:DBD7 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Apologies for not speaking up sooner, as I didn’t notice the merge tag be added, but serious, what is up with the lazy discussion above? What a weak WP:VAGUEWAVE argument. There’s ten sources in the article, all dedicated to the subject. And enough content for a lead and three paragraphs. It glides by any minimum requirements. Strong oppose to merging. (And the “consensus” above is extremely weak and flimsy.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Merge or Delete. This article is a mountain made of a mole hill. A non-entity. It never happened. Should've been a delete per Crystal before. And now it just is not notable. I don't have a horse in this race, only here because I did the merge, which was then reverted. I do A LOT of merges, and have to say, if ever an article deserved to be merged, it's this one. P.S.: If this article does actually pass Notability Games, then those guidelines really, really need to be updated by your project. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s more VAGUEWAVE stuff. CRYSTAL doesn’t apply at all. Nothing in there is editor speculation, it’s all content sourced directly to reliable sources. There’s ten dedicated sources considered reliable per WP:VG/S, three moderate sized paragraphs of content in the body - one for premise and two for development ideas and cancellation reasons. That’s plenty. There’s no requirement for a game to be released. Also keep in mind that the AFD in 2015 occurred because it looked like this, and was unanimously kept once I expanded it out three paragraphs. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There's only two events, not any game. No game was ever produced. There will never be more information about gameplay, and there will be no reception since the game was never made. The two events are: the announcement trailer for the game, and then the announcement of its cancellation years later. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Events can occur and be documented in reliable sources, but not enough to establish independent notability worth of being an article. These instead work better as events within the company history of Comcept. When it comes to movies, they tend to shy away from making articles on the movies until they actually start shooting since so many movies are dreamed about and announced, but never go anywhere. This is a similar situation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s another gross oversimplification of the article. It covers far more than its announcement and cancellation. There’s content on its story direction, inspirations, reason for platform choice, plans for it being a multi-media platform, etc. These “it’ll never grow any farther” comments are baffling - since when do we need three paragraph, ten source articles to grow? Not every article needs to grow into a GA someday. This easily meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you also oppose the merge of Red Ash that happened some time ago? 2600:1012:B01D:F7F2:0:50:A634:7A01 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I’ve never seen the article, nor did I follow that title very much, so I’d have to do some research before I could really answer that. It’s not like I’m some Comcept fanboy or something. I merely saw the article was at AFD back 5 years ago, thought it was a curious choice for deletion because I had casually noticed it be covered a lot on video games websites I generally follow, and completely rewrote the article when I found plenty of coverage and things to write prose about. I’ve had it on my watchlist ever since, though it’s seen little in conflict over the years, so I wasn’t watching closely, and missed the initial merge discussion proposal, only noticing once someone redirected it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Using an example closer to this article, There were announcements for a MN9 animated series and live action film. All of this is reported by quality reliable sources. I could probably find 5-10 articles discussing this and probably get a few paragraphs of information. If I had made pages on either of them however, they would have the pages merged and redirected, citing WP:CRYSTAL because just because something is announced, it doesn't mean anything. We have no clue if it's gonna go anywhere. It's very common for films and television series to be announced, get tons of coverage, and then never go anywhere. How many times have you seen headlines how they're making a new series, rebooting some old franchise, etc and then they never go anywhere? At most those are worth a few lines in a series page, not proper articles themselves. Bringing it back to games, this is what King of Pirates ammounted to: short news cycle announcement not worth an article until there's something. And there's likely never going to be any more news or coverage about some obscure failed project.

Now, the text for the article is pretty good. Which is why it'd fit fine in this article rather than being independent. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s simply not true. It’s not a CRYSTAL issue if it’s written to reliably sourced commentary, which is what this article is. If things were as strict as you say, it’d be impossible to have an article on any unreleased commercial product, which is obviously not how it works. The types of cancelled articles that are generally redirect/merged are the sloppy articles that contain a source an a sentence or two of content. And I fully support merging that sort of stuff. But there was plenty of sourced commentary present here. I again reject this argument about it being unlikely to generate further coverage being an issue. It doesn’t need more. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject input

The Kaio: King of Pirates article, as seen here, was merged based on the discussion above. It ran for a long time, but saw few participants, and in my eyes, unsatisfactory appraisal of the article, so I’ve asked for more input. Full disclosure, I wrote majority of the article to save it from deletion when it was nominated in 2015. I added 10 sources and three paragraphs of content which led to it being kept. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Serge. So what if it was canceled? There's enough coverage to support an article. A simple Google search turned up dozens of results from reliable sources. JOEBRO64 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's plenty of sources about Kaio: KoP to merit its own article. Redirecting it without reaching a definitive consenseus was reaching too far. If anybody want to improve the article then do it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• This actually raises a good point I had forgotten about. I’ve repeatedly gotten responses related to the fact that, because it’s been cancelled, it’s unlikely to get any more coverage. But it doesn’t need to get new coverage - there was a lot of coverage I didn’t even use back in 2015 when I rewrote/expanded the article. Siliconera alone wrote 10 dedicated about the subject, and it looks like I used zero of them in the article. I’m sure there’s overlap in the ones that were used, but I’m also certain there’s more to be extracted too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, clearly there is more than enough content for a fleshed-out article, and the game never being released certainly does not mean it is not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: As stated above, just because it wasn't released doesn't mean that it does not have any notability, and a quick Google check reveals many sources that could be used to help build on the article. ContentWar2 (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)